Well reasoned, Bill. Generally, I agree with the approach.

But, in seeking a compromise on abortion, I'd like to move the goalpost. As you've summarized, the current rules depend on viability. I'd like to see them depend on 'measurable life.'

Hospitals measure dead and dying patients by brain wave and heartbeat. If a patient has a brain wave and heartbeat, he's alive.

Let's apply that same rule to the unborn. I'm fuzzy on the details, but these indicators are not detectable in the first trimester, still allowing early, prompt abortions.

Not so tricky. A mother can have her child removed from her after birth for chemical abuses (drugs and/or alcohol) during the pregnancy.

When John says he believes that life begins at conception, morally it is the equivalent of saying he believes abortion is murder. When he pulls his beliefs from the church and says things like that, there is no room for interpretation.

He is in favor of allowing women to murder their children.

Funny. I don't see a lot of topless women walking around. The Government tells them they must cover their breasts at all times and yet that particular item doesn't get a lot of attention.

The Government also tells them that we're not allowed to ingest certain substances. We're also not allowed to make floral arrangements in certain states without their consent.

Many of these intrusions are much less controversial than abortion, yet no one seems to either mind or care enough to challenge them. Yet, when it comes to the point of possibly killing another human being people act like the government is actually reaching inside women's wombs to control them.

Once again, you are using absolutism - the majority of Americans do not define early term abortion as "murder," even though many acknowledge that a fetus constitutes a "life." Laws obtain authority by employing terms that reflect your belief structure, not consensus.

Bill, not my beliefs. John's stated Catholic beliefs.

Personally, I am pro-choice, within limits.

(above post was not too marble)

Marble - good point about clothing optional, but once again, it is a consensus opinion that clothing is socially necessary.

Also, the laws against drug use in situations that do not harm others are bs, in my opinion.

Deb - point taken, but if we removed every Catholic that didn't strictly adhere to church doctrine and intent ...

All I'm saying is his conflict with his beliefs points to a very weak character. The issue itself is just about null. It points to conflict within himself that he hasn't the will nor the character to resolve.

Presidential material?

Oh, the church shouldn't be in a position to have to weed out non-believers. I left voluntarily, in fact, gleefully.

I just cannot understand John. When your personal beliefs are in direct conflict with that of your church... how do you use your church as a selling point?

I want to state upfront that I am pro-life and that I think it is extremely important to have calm discussions like this on this issue. While I appreciate your thoughtful comments I wanted to point out two, IMO, falsehoods :

1. "Separation of Church and State" This phrase, concept, idea does not exist in our official governing documents. There is a clear mandate though in the First Amendment that prohibits the State from establishing or restricting religion. It protects the Church, and the peoples religious liberties from the State, not the other way around.

2. "an unborn child is a part of the mother's body"
No it is not a part of her body; they are separate beings with separate bodies, separate circulatory systems, unique DNA and blood type, etc.

* A previous comment was made about the timing of detectable heartbeat in the unborn child - 42 days (6 weeks) is when you can record their unique EKG and hear/see that heartbeat through ultrasound.

Question:
If being physically dependent upon another is used as a criteria for being considered 'Human', and being afforded full human rights, what about co-joined twins in which one is totally dependent upon the other through shared organs?

I'm interested in hearing what yall think, thanks!

"they are separate beings with separate bodies, separate circulatory systems, unique DNA and blood type, etc."

I fundamentally disagree that this constitutes a separation that invalidates the classification of the young fetus as an extension of the woman's body - one being is dependent on the other for survival.

I don't quite understand the twins analogy - as far as I know, conjoined twins are often separated at great risk to one or both. In cases where they can't, obviously it's not an option.

Once again, the state enforcing succesful pregnancy at all costs is not something that I think is practical.

From a purely scientific point of view I see this separation as significant because a fetus can be removed from the mothers body and survive:

- At an early stage the fetus can be placed in the uterus of another woman, and then carried to term.

- At a later stage (22+ weeks) the fetus can be placed in an incubator in a NICU and develop normally. Of course some do not, some die or have disabilities; but so do some that are carried to term in their biological mother.

There are some co-joined twins in which one child has all the organs required to live independently, yet their twin does not. That twin essentially 'taps' into the bloodstream of the other to survive. The first twin is not dependent on the other, the second twin is -- is one a human being and the other not?*

*There is an actual pending case on this very situation I describe above! The first twin wants to be separated, he would survive the surgery but the other twin would not. The case has not been filed yet, at least I don't think so, but I'll check to see for certain.

It really shook me when I read the brief, that is why I posed the question. As I freely admitted before, I am pro-life so I realize I have some bias. Therefore I seek other opinions and thoughts - usually - but I can do a mean digital brown shirt at times :-)

Bill, great post and I agree wholeheartedly. This is the ONLY issue where I can understand Kerry's pov. Abortion is a moral issue not a legal one, as the Supreme Court has consistently proved since the 1970s.

I believe the discourse between "liberal"/"conservative" or "Dem"/"Rep" is too filled with absolutism. I am GENERALLY conservative but shun the label. The general antagonistic aura between sides that I've read about on many blogs in this election year I feel is a result of this. Some are so absolute in their beliefs, they do not respect others' rights to disagree. But that respect and understanding is what our great country is founded on.

DC D-
I understand the twins argument, but I think that there are major differences that fatally flaw a direct analogy.

And while a completely pro-life person places equal value on the life of a conception that is only a few weeks old, others do not; this is the crux of the argument. Many pro-life folks tend to frame the argument in terms of "who are you to decide what life has what value," but I think that this argument is also flawed; we assign value to life all the time and act accordingly. Everything from the right-to-die to acceptable civilian casulaties in war relies on teh application of grim moral calculus.

And beyond this calculus exists the issue of conflicting rights. I don't want to over-legislate that decision. About 2/3 of the country agrees with me to some extent, which makes pro-life efforts futile, and removes the entirety of the blame from what many on the right might refer to as the "activist courts."

As you mention, as science pushes the boundaries of viabilities backwards, the definition of viable life evolves and favors the pro-life movement. Hopefully, technology will advance to a point where the entire devisive issue of abortion is rendered moot by procedures that remove or transfer the pregnancy without injury to either party. This is certainly on the horizon.

itsmedavid -

Thanks and I agree 100%.

The only problem I have with the argument on first reading is that we already have no problem whatsoever using the law to "take over" men's bodies in the interest of a child for 18 years to support it while doing so to a woman for nine months seems intolerable.

And the viability thing seems a bit wonky to me. A child isn't capable of surviving by itself even outside of the womb. It still requires someone to care for it to keep it alive for several years. I understand that "viability" is a specific medical term but it seems to me that a child in the womb and a child out of the womb still require a person's attention and their physical resources. I think that "viability" is an awfully shaky thing on which to pin whether a human lives or dies.

A. In your two examples, you overlook the fact that in neither one is the "life" in question a literal physical extension of the biological function of the mother (father in the other example).

B. "whether a human lives or dies" - I place subjective value on various forms of life - slippery slope, but I do

The point is the zygote has little will or intellect at conception, and is a literal physical extension of the mother's body. this causes many to place less value on the life and/or say that the rights of that life are subordinate to the will of the adult mother.

2/3 of te nation places less value on the fertilized egg at conception - not enough consensus for an popular legislative ban.

This is an issue that shouldn't be decided at a national level. Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the issue returned to the states. If certain states want to be killing fields, fine. If certain states want to support life, fine. Bill says there is not enough of a consensus for a popular legislative ban. Let the states decide for themselves.

Rhetoric like "killing fields" is a bit of a slap in the face. 2/3 of America wants "killing fields." MORE than 2/3 of "bloodthirsty" Americans, or a couple hundred million "homocidal maniacs" want the "genocidal" morning after pill, which is just a large dose of female hormones, so that they can unleash a twenty-first century "holocaust," the likes of which THE WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN.

Take the rhetoric to the next ANSWER rally. Different topics, but it will still fit in.

With regards to states' rights, I'm not uncomfortable with that, since the vast majority of states would reach a similar legislative compromise to one enacted by the Supreme Court. BUT -

A. semantics - individuals will just cross state lines

B. control over one's own boiological function IS arguably a civil rights issue

Bill, where do you get that 2/3 statistic from? I'm wanting to read more. Thanks.

Links are in the post.

I know. :) Been sitting there trying to decypher which stat you're pinging on. Moral or Roe?

TRIMESTERS -- While two-thirds of Americans say abortion should be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy, only one-quarter say it should be legal in the second trimester. The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 1998, nearly nine in 10 abortions were performed in the first 12 weeks.

[FULL DISCLOSURE: Note that author of this post is very pro-life]

Your blog is fantastic and I am a big fan. We clearly disagree on this issue; I don’t want to start an emotional discussion on abortion. If there is a logical argument for the pro-choice position it may be in the libertarian “keep government out of my life” path, but not the “compromise” in your post. I doubt I would buy it, but I can admit that there might be intellectual grounds for that argument.

Would you support a complete ban if science proved the theory that life begins at conception? Your post seems to indicate that you think that will someday happen (“In the pro-life movement's favor, medical science is constantly redefining viability to earlier and earlier points during a woman's pregnancy.”), should we wait until then or act now?

If there is a breakthrough this morning that shows that a baby can be saved during the first trimester, is the abortion performed later that day a murder?

If the line between murder and abortion is drawn by the point where the baby can live outside the mother’s body, and that line moves toward conception all the time, should we err on the side of caution?

Thanks. I never did understand why they lifted that restriction in the first place, the 12 week rule. Throw me in that 2/3.

madmark - I have already stated that I believe that "life" occurs after conception - I just place varying value on the rights of that life, and can understand how someone would think that abortion is WRONG, yet not feel that they should dictate another's morality on the matter.

In our present environment, compromise is pretty reasonable, unless you want to start jailing mothers taht don't take care of themselves during pregnancy - after all, it's child abuse ...

regarding the lower threshold for viability - the only way that science is going to define viability into the first , say, 45 days is if science develops methods of providing some sort of artificial womb taht would carry the child to term, in which case ... the need for abortion may cease to exist.

Bill,
Again my aim is not to dictate morality. I am just thinking that if you give me that it is a human life at conception (no matter how low a value you place on it), how is it different some 9 months later to kill it?

The child abuse argument relies on straw man/slippery slope fallacies.

"some sort of artificial womb that would carry the child to term" What a wonderful thing that would be. But that doesn't answer the question of a breakthrough this morning leading to a murder this afternoon.

madmark -

My point is, I don't think that any medical breakthrough is possibly going to reveal that a 4 week old fertilized egg can survive outside of the womb, unless science develops an alternate means to help it survive. So no, no breakthrough is going to lead to first trimester abortions being called "murder," in the sense that a life who passes the viability argument is being snuffed.

unless new artificial means of helping the baby survive are developed, in which case perhaps the child could be removed ...

Currently I believe viabilty has been moved back to as soon as 5 months, though I'm not 100% on that ...

Um, what's the big debate with someone saying that life begins at conception? As a group of living cells with its own genetic blueprint, it's factually true. Of course, the sperm and eggs cells that came before it and joined to make it were just as alive. Dead eggs do not live babies make.

The issue is not when does life begin, but when does an entity become entitled to rights and recognition.

Personally, I've stated my opinion on the matter so many times on my own blog and others (which I'm sure you've all made note of and converted to my way of thinking because it is right and proper and people will like you), that I've little desire to do it again here. :)

Had to squawl some notes, so many good points being made here (not all I subscribe to, of course) -

DC Diva - Bill thread:
The "right-to-die" and "war casualty" argument is moot here I belive. Equating a terminally ill or elderly patient who chooses to die with an infant who is killed is impossible. And to equate death for a greater cause (freedom, protection, etc) with death for convenience (aSI see abortion) is selfish.

The 2/3 argument is irrelevant I believe. I look for leadership in my employers and my elected officials. Sometimes a leader has to make decisions that are right even in the face of overwhelming oppostion. Our Founding Fathers did it, Churchill and Eisenhouwer did it, and countless others who I have great respect for. To pol to crowd and then decide so as the get the biggest cheer is reprehesible. Any nit can do that...

Jimmie:
Wow x2
The child support rgument was intriguing. However, I return to my stated position on this issue... I am PRO-CHOICE! That's right, pro-choice, I believe the prospective mother-to-be and father-to-be should choose in many cases to "Just say No!" (h/t Nancy Reagan) If they would not engage in reckless behavior they wouldn't be needing the aboriton to protect their social life, finances, pride, church standing, employment, etc...

Viablilty of the full-term infant is an excellent point. If the woman can kill a 4 month child-in-womb, what is to say she shouldn't be allowed to "terminate" a 6-month-old child-out-of-womb? We hear about the girl leaving her just-born baby in the trash can at the local high school often enough. Those babies are no more viable than my fish without care and yet we persue them as crimminals (as we should!).

Final Point:
I don't have easy access to the email that I have seen circulated, but here is the Cliff Notes version:

A woman is pregnant with her 11th child. The husband is out of work, the mother has one/more STDs. The first ten children are in various stages of health and wellness....

Should the woman get an abortion?

Evidence/common sense points to Yes.

If you agree with this popular wisdom (dare I say 2/3 agreement) you would have just killed Beethoven.

God Bless to all who deamnd the Truth!

I was thinking about this just a bit more last night and wanted to add one last thing. Here in my home state, Illinois, there is a law which protects mothers from being charged with murder of their full term baby, if the umbilical cord has not yet been separated. Think about that. Kinda dulls the whole abortion thing.

* My point about moral calculus (war argument, etc) is that I place relative values on different forms of life. I do not consider a two-day old zygote equivalent to an infant, or vastly different than the separate sperm and egg that created it 48 hours prior ... I guess that may sound cruel to you, but it's how I and many others feel.

* "Convenience" is an insensitive throwaway remark used by strident pro-lifers - I've seen families and lives completely torn up by unwanted pregnancy. This is not "inconvenience."

* The 2/3 argument IS relevant. Because your leaders WILL NOT pass legislation without broader popular support. See also "gay marriage debate" and complainst about "activist courts" that defy the popular will of the people. Face it - absolutism on the abortion issue is somewhat of a fringe position.

* re: "Just say No!"
Agsin, simplifying the issue. Birth Control fails, people make singular mistakes that are not part of an irresponsible trend. Sex is too much of an ubiquitous pursuit to just chalk it up to a bad choice. It's going to happen. If you think that a sixteen year-old kid should have to completely abandon plans for a college education and financial security, as well as severely marginalizing her chances of ever finding someone to marry a single mother, all because her birth control failed and her parents convinced/pressured her to keep the baby, then ...

* um your last point about viability makes no sense to me.

* I can live without Beethoven. just because some exceptional individuals are born into disturbed households has little to do with an argument over who has the right to control their own body, or whether the termination of a life is immoral.

One thing everyone on both sides of this issue needs to realize - there are no perfectly tidy arguments And using throwaway, condescending hyperbole in the course of an argument largely deafens your opponents when you try to get them to understand and respect your position.

Last comment...

I feel the need, as an adoptive father, to point out that the commitment of the "sixteen year-old kid should have to completely abandon plans..." or the "woman is pregnant with her 11th child..." is a mere 9 months (or less depending on the detection of pregnancy).

Compare that to the lifetime of joy for a set of adoptive parents and the life of a child in a happy, wanted and loving family.

Adoption is a real alternative.

I agree - but in the situation that I'm thinking of (I wrote about it awhile ago), the kid was browbeaten and guilted into keeping the kid. It was a bad decision.

Look, i'm pro-choice, but I'm conflicted on the matter and I respect much of the pro-life rationale and argument. I just think that absolutism on this issue that doesn't bend is not the way to go, in either direction.

For what it's worth, Bill, I agree with you on the absolutism point. My own take is that science is really unable to speak authoritatively on the issue, so any determination we make will be sujective. We always come back to the "people of good will disagree" on what contitutes a life worthy of protection. Unfortunately, unlike other issues, we're talking about "things" that many people believe are real and innocent human beings and others believe as inconveniences to their futures which reduces the amount of "good will" available to the argument.

I believe that we will be judged well by history if, even though we can not say for sure where a human life begins, we erred toward not killing. It may well be that science one day finds human life does indeed begin at conception, or shortly thereafter. How deep will our shame be that we decided not to make our error toward life instead of the other way?

Sure, but as andy mentions above, your language confuses me - I'm not saying that human life doesn't begin at conception. I just don't place equal value on the form that life takes until a certain point. call it callous, call it inhumane, but it's how I feel. I've seen what unwanted pregnancies in varying circumstances can do to people, and it's a thorny issue.